Linkage interference

[khigerd]

Has anyone else seen any interference between the pitch linkage and the canopy stud?

[jph140]

Hi, had the same issue if I went to far out on the servo horn. I use the inner hole. Not ideal but still get good reseloution on th evbar. Bit of a design flaw I think personally. Looks like you've had to file some of the canopy post off for the link to work. Be good to see some more pictures\idea's from other x50 users on how they got around this.

Cheers

[TomC]

I used 22mm ball/ball servo arm lengths on all 3 cyclic servos and this not only works great, it clears the canopy stud fine.

Nowhere in the manual does it say the cyclic servo arm spacing must be equal to the bellcrank spacing (~30mm). The important thing is that all 3 of them must be the same. Probably get a bit better resolution by bringing in the cyclic servo spacing in a little anyway imho.

Cheers,
TomC

[khigerd]

The manual does show all linkages are parallel and the rods are square to the servo horns. That beings said, the linkage spacing in the drawings is more narrow than what is actual on the helicopter.

[Bladecpnitro]

I don't see what it would hurt to bend an off set in that one link. To do that it would have to be longer though. It would do the same job with an off set bent into it long as its the right length. looks plenty a strong enough for an off set not to bend farther under a load.

[TomC]

Bending rods, grinding posts, lol! Just take your cyclic servo arms in a bit. Very simple and it works fine. Some of you are making this a lot harder than it really is imho.

Cheers,
TomC

[khigerd]

I wasn't asking how to fix it, i just wanted to know if anyone else has the same interference.

Next question. Does the X50 nitro have the same problem?

[TomC]

Originally Posted by khigerd

I wasn't asking how to fix it, i just wanted to know if anyone else has the same interference.

Next question. Does the X50 nitro have the same problem?

It's only a problem because you are making it out to be a problem imho. Your interference has been a problem you have introduced. Any experienced heli-builder would have figured all this out without a connect-the-dot manual that many inexperienced guys, esp those used to rtf heli's seem to need.

Cheers,
TomC

[khigerd]

Originally Posted by TomC

It's only a problem because you are making it out to be a problem imho. Your interference has been a problem you have introduced. Any experienced heli-builder would have figured all this out without a connect-the-dot manual that many inexperienced guys, esp those used to rtf heli's seem to need.

Cheers,
TomC

Hey mate I'm just trying to learn something here. Was that really necessary?

[TomC]

Originally Posted by khigerd

Hey mate I'm just trying to learn something here. Was that really necessary?

Ya maybe a little harsh but I guess I expect a bit more on a TT X50e subforum. However I can be a bit of a cranky old fart sometimes, lol! Sorry Mate.

Cheers,
TomC

[WessCo]

If you'll search in the nitro subforum, there is a thread about ball spacing.

[TomC]

Originally Posted by WessCo

If you'll search in the nitro subforum, there is a thread about ball spacing.

Not very useful imho. Mainly just one guy telling you that unless your servo spacing to bellcrank spacing is not perfectly 1:1 (~28mm ball to ball spacing in our fbl case) you will get binding in the extreme ends of servo travel. then he shows you that you can offset the servo ball locations to account for this, lol! What he fails to show is that we do not operate at these extreme servo travel ends.

In my case bringing the servo ball spacing into ~22-23mm does not cause any binding within the servos operating travels and in fact bringing the servo balls in a bit actually improves the servo resolution imho.

The larger G4 fbl also does not use the magic 1:1 ratio either btw.

Cheers,
TomC